There's always a tension between winning tonight and building for the future ...

For example, if I were the Sparks and magically had had a choice between having Sue Bird as my point guard this year, or Chelsea Gray or Odyssey Sims, I would have taken Bird in a heartbeat if I wanted to win this year.

Well THIS year, Diggins dragged a far weaker less talented Wings team to a better record than Bird's Storm.

Both Diggins and Gray were voted to All WNBA teams. Bird wasn't.

Are you sure your heartbeat choice isn't based on reputation and nostalgia rather than actual current performance?

That says more about their numbers then about Bird. If you look at Birds numbers alone then you would never guess that she is the oldest player in the wnba and those numbers still prove that she is still one of the best pure PG's in the game.

Keep telling everyone that they need to get rid of the old players. As long as Bird doesnt play like one and keeps up with most of them if not all then she deserves a spot on that team because she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..

_________________"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant

I'm not buying the Sims over Diggins-Smith because she plays better D argument. Team USA has went with Bird backup by Whalen for years, why would defense be important now? Also if you have Curry or Westbrook on a team full of stars do you expect them to become passers all of a sudden? Having a scoring guard lead team USA isn't a bad ideal. Unlike Griner, EDD, Parker, Charles, Sims and others Diggins-Smith has never had a great pro coach, yet she still lead an up and down Wings team to the playoffs, a better finish then teams with/ who has had multiple all stars, and she had the Shock in a position to get a top seed out west before she got hurt in 2015. All that said Diggins-Smith has been a great pro, and has earned her spot on a USA team.

Well evidently it can't happen. Who deserves it is irrelevant. According to some, Bird has squatter's rights until she gets tired of stuffing her trophy case, even if that's four or five Olympics from now.

Dave, regarding the podcast, Callan stated that players from the previous Olympic team will be on the next team if they're still playing b/b and haven't chosen to step aside. This is when you could have followed up by asking about Candace not being on the team in 2016, since she would have been on it according to Callan's statement. It would be fair to ask about that discrepancy.

Also, given Callan's statement, I see little hope for "new" players to make the Olympic team because Callan said that 11 players from 2016 want to play.

The other question I have is based on your post here about Catchings. My question is why wouldn't Nneka replace her in 2016, if you compare how well each was playing then? Just because someone hasn't been chosen for the Olympic team in the past doesn't mean they haven't participated in USA b/b and given a lot.

Dave, regarding the podcast, Callan stated that players from the previous Olympic team will be on the next team if they're still playing b/b and haven't chosen to step aside. This is when you could have followed up by asking about Candace not being on the team in 2016, since she would have been on it according to Callan's statement. It would be fair to ask about that discrepancy.

Also, given Callan's statement, I see little hope for "new" players to make the Olympic team because Callan said that 11 players from 2016 want to play.

The other question I have is based on your post here about Catchings. My question is why wouldn't Nneka replace her in 2016, if you compare how well each was playing then? Just because someone hasn't been chosen for the Olympic team in the past doesn't mean they haven't participated in USA b/b and given a lot.

Fair enough, but we've all heard USA Basketball's answer regarding Candace, and the fact she was invited to this camp shows USA Basketball at a minimum offering the olive branch. Whether it's too little too late we'll have to see in the future, she said no, which no one can blame her, but I think she'll get more invites.

I thought Catchings was still good enough to keep Indiana a playoff contender so she deserved to still have her spot if she wanted it.

I just think that the best in the world, at their peak, donated more time and effort to USA Basketball than they had to. Now that they may be slipping some, I think they deserve that benefit of the doubt if they want to.

Do I think it's necessary for them to continue? No, I don't. That was never asked of me, though, my opinion on if they need to play. They've gotten their medals, they could easily step aside, especially now that Geno is no longer their coach.

I do feel that they should have the right to continue if they want to and can (emphasize and can), and they shouldn't be just tossed aside because of their age and the desire to appease younger players.

I'm not buying the Sims over Diggins-Smith because she plays better D argument. Team USA has went with Bird backup by Whalen for years, why would defense be important now?

Because the pass-first game managers who can score when they need to barely exist at the top level any more. So you have to prioritise something else. And with so much offensive firepower elsewhere on the floor, you don't necessarily want someone whose greatest skill is putting the ball in the basket.

I'm by no means saying that they will choose someone like Sims over the likes of Gray and Diggins, or that Gray/Diggins couldn't do the job for Team USA very well. I just agree with zune69 that if they picked Sims ahead of them I wouldn't be hugely surprised. They already picked her once four years ago.

I just think that the best in the world, at their peak, donated more time and effort to USA Basketball than they had to. Now that they may be slipping some, I think they deserve that benefit of the doubt if they want to..

That's sort of self fulfilling isn't it? The only reason they've dedicated "more time" is because they hogged the spots. Others have done everything they could have done and had an opportunity to do, playing on junior teams, 3x3 teams, coming to camps, etc. Answering every call from USA Basketball.

I really don't understand why "squatter's rights" should have anything to do with who gets the opportunity to represent their country in the Olympics. I find that completely indefensible.

It's pure cronyism. It wouldn't be tolerated for a second in any responsible organization.

But in all sports - especially in the international game, and especially when it comes to the squad, rather than the ones who play the bulk of the minutes - that usually means some combination of 'best chance to win right now' and 'best chance to win down the line'. For the US in basketball, isn't the aim to win everything essentially in perpetuity? And the problem if you just keep picking the old guard until the end of time is that they could all fall off a cliff and/or quit at the same time, leaving a bit of a vacuum behind them.

I mean, we're talking fractions here, because let's face it, the US could take 12 players to the Worlds next year who've never been to a major tournament and they'd still be strong favourites. But the risk of another 2006 is surely what they should be trying to minimise.

But in all sports - especially in the international game, and especially when it comes to the squad, rather than the ones who play the bulk of the minutes - that usually means some combination of 'best chance to win right now' and 'best chance to win down the line'. For the US in basketball, isn't the aim to win everything essentially in perpetuity? And the problem if you just keep picking the old guard until the end of time is that they could all fall off a cliff and/or quit at the same time, leaving a bit of a vacuum behind them.

I mean, we're talking fractions here, because let's face it, the US could take 12 players to the Worlds next year who've never been to a major tournament and they'd still be strong favourites. But the risk of another 2006 is surely what they should be trying to minimise.

Plus, how does anyone reconcile "You are supposed to pick who gives you the best chance to win" with "I do feel that they should have the right to continue if they want to and can"?

The latter has nothing to do with the former. It says incumbents get to keep their spot regardless of whether they are the best choice.

But in all sports - especially in the international game, and especially when it comes to the squad, rather than the ones who play the bulk of the minutes - that usually means some combination of 'best chance to win right now' and 'best chance to win down the line'. For the US in basketball, isn't the aim to win everything essentially in perpetuity? And the problem if you just keep picking the old guard until the end of time is that they could all fall off a cliff and/or quit at the same time, leaving a bit of a vacuum behind them.

I mean, we're talking fractions here, because let's face it, the US could take 12 players to the Worlds next year who've never been to a major tournament and they'd still be strong favourites. But the risk of another 2006 is surely what they should be trying to minimise.

Plus, how does anyone reconcile "You are supposed to pick who gives you the best chance to win" with "I do feel that they should have the right to continue if they want to and can"?

The latter has nothing to do with the former. It says incumbents get to keep their spot regardless of whether they are the best choice.

It says the incumbents get to keep their spots if they continue to help them win.

But in all sports - especially in the international game, and especially when it comes to the squad, rather than the ones who play the bulk of the minutes - that usually means some combination of 'best chance to win right now' and 'best chance to win down the line'. For the US in basketball, isn't the aim to win everything essentially in perpetuity? And the problem if you just keep picking the old guard until the end of time is that they could all fall off a cliff and/or quit at the same time, leaving a bit of a vacuum behind them.

I mean, we're talking fractions here, because let's face it, the US could take 12 players to the Worlds next year who've never been to a major tournament and they'd still be strong favourites. But the risk of another 2006 is surely what they should be trying to minimise.

And I think the 12 players never been part is what allows them to keep running out the veterans too. They know that should Taurasi, Bird, Whalen, Augustus and Fowles all say no to 2020, there should be enough returnees and talented younger players to take over without that big a hiccup.

Art is right in that it is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They play a lot of tournaments, so they (IMO) earn the right to continue, but because they play those tournaments that's why they earn that right instead of someone else.

But in all sports - especially in the international game, and especially when it comes to the squad, rather than the ones who play the bulk of the minutes - that usually means some combination of 'best chance to win right now' and 'best chance to win down the line'. For the US in basketball, isn't the aim to win everything essentially in perpetuity? And the problem if you just keep picking the old guard until the end of time is that they could all fall off a cliff and/or quit at the same time, leaving a bit of a vacuum behind them.

I mean, we're talking fractions here, because let's face it, the US could take 12 players to the Worlds next year who've never been to a major tournament and they'd still be strong favourites. But the risk of another 2006 is surely what they should be trying to minimise.

Plus, how does anyone reconcile "You are supposed to pick who gives you the best chance to win" with "I do feel that they should have the right to continue if they want to and can"?

The latter has nothing to do with the former. It says incumbents get to keep their spot regardless of whether they are the best choice.

It says the incumbents get to keep their spots if they continue to help them win.

100 players or more could "help them win". That has zero to do with your statement regarding picking "who gives you the BEST chance to win.". Squatter's rights are entirely inconsistent with choosing the BEST.

In reality it seems you're for picking the same old crew as long as, as a group, they're good enough to win, regardless of whether they give the BEST chance to win, and regardless of whether some of them belong at all.

BTW, one thing being overlooked here is that it is a tremendous honor and opportunity to be able to represent your country in the Olympics. I think everyone should have a fair and equal right to those coveted spots. And that right is far more real than any supposed "right" of incumbency.

It's just plain wrong to place a less deserving player on the team over another player who deserves the chance because of her play just because the former player was on the last team or the last four teams. It's not fair and it's not right. And it's completely unfair to the excluded player.

Do people think that if Phelps finishes fifth in the next Olympic trials in an event he should be one of the three sent to the Olympics just because of his past success and contributions? Should he be included on the swimming team in his favorite events as long as he feels like it? Is that fair to the swimmers he displaces from the team? Would anyone tolerate that for a second? That's exactly what's being supported for Women's basketball, and it's all justified because there's no electrically timed certainty of the correct ranking.

But objectively there are more deserving choices. And they'd be chosen if friendships and incumbency were ignored.

That's a great point about the honor of playing -- given the competitive reality, maybe that should be taken into consideration a bit more than "they get to play as long as they want."

But back to Bird ... a team does not necessarily consist of the best 12 available players, and with the firepower and athleticism available to the U.S., having a "floor general" run the show makes a great deal of sense to me.

And yes, Seattle did not do as well as Dallas, but the coach was fired, after all, so I don't think you can blame Loyd's down year on Bird.

It wouldn't hurt my feelings if Diggins, Sims, Gray, et al., made the team, but I do think Bird will be very effective as the lead guard in an event that does not feature exceptional athleticism and on a team that needs steady play from the point.

I don't think the same logic will necessarily apply in 2020, and for that reason, going young in 2018 makes sense, but it's a complex equation, especially given the Callan thoughts on the matter.

We have a new coach, and her priority is to win, not necessarily to give new players opportunity.

If you're a new coach, would you rather have a PG that you're familiar with in Team USA basketball and is savvy enough to be an extra coach on the floor and has immense international experience, or would you rather a PG that is pretty green in all of that. Diggins could have helped her own cause by playing overseas. Sims... I don't know. I don't have a lot of faith in her being the leader of Team USA. Seems a bit erratic to me. Her defense is over-hyped. So she hawks an occasional ball from Whalen. She gambles in order to do that so she often times gets burned by getting out of position. I also hate her vulnerability of not being able to drive right.

PG is the most important position to have experience, so I don't blame Team USA in being very happy to have Bird and Whalen taking care of their bodies and continuing to make themselves available.

What Whalen is doing now in the WNBA Finals most closely resembles what would be needed in Team USA. The WNBA Finals is basketball at the highest level in the world. She has elite players around her as there would be on Team USA. She knows what to do. They really don't need a PG that's a high scorer and green at international play and leading unless it's the only option available.

Considering how little Team USA gets to practice together, it makes a ton of sense that they'd prefer experience and savvy at the PG position. The structure is good in the Team USA scenario.

A change has to happen sometime, but why force it's not necessary... because it's not fair? This isn't Girl Scouts. This is Team USA basketball.

_________________Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned

Of course, when it comes to the point guard position, there's every chance we'll end up seeing the middle-ground - Bird gets to continue on in her perpetual role, but Whalen gets dumped in favour of a younger model who will ideally become Bird's successor. Whalen had noticeably lost an extra half-step this season even before the injury, which'll make it more 'justifiable' (along with her having never been as much of a part of the USA Basketball furniture as Bird).

Whalen had noticeably lost an extra half-step this season even before the injury

Not sure what a hand injury has to do with her stepping, but I disagree. I've been noticing that she's about as quick as she's ever been. Probably can't get 35 min of quickness, but she's still relatively quick.

_________________Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned

I’m just trying to be a leader now. I learned just coming to this, just playing your game and contributing to the team is not about what you might normally do for your other teams. It’s about sacrificing for the greater good.

So during the run up to the 2016 Olympics I was completely in support of all the returning player being allowed to continue. Now I'm not so sure. But

When people say "give them the best chance to win", it's a hard argument to make against the returning vets. Yes there are player who might have better stats, but clearly the players returning who got the gold in 2008, 2012, 2016 have proof on their side, they won the gold, the medal doesn't get any golder. Yes the same exact thing could have happened with other player, but we know for a fact with these player on team USA they achieved the ultimate goal.

The players themselves don't make the decision who is on the team. I agree that it is surprising that vets like Bird, DT, Whalen, Augustus and others want to continue to put in the work to stay on the National Team, but it is just as much their right to wish to continue, as it is the right of new players to want to make the team. It is the coaches and committee who make the final decision so I don't think it is fair to blame the players in question for wanting to continue to persue Their Olympic dream. Just as it might seem unfair to keep giving them the spot, it would also be unfair to not let them keep fighting for a spot if they choose to and are good enough to help the team. Just as going to the Olympics is not their right, it is also not the right of the talented players who haven't made the team.

Who "deserves" to go is a very hard argument to make as well. A player might seem as an individual to be a better player than another player, but even that is subjective to a certain point, and then when you throw in a team dynamic, experience and other intangibles it isn't as clear. Just as it might seem unfair for the same players to repeat many times, it seems just as unfair to ask a player who has dedicated their lives to the National Team to step aside so someone else can have a turn. If I'm Sue Bird and I feel I can still play, and have dedicated myself to the national Team my whole life, I'm not going to feel bad about someone else not making it. I had to fight to get on the team, I've had to work hard to stay on the team, and it's not my fault someone else hasn't made it.

Now if you look at success in the W, then decent players contributing to the teams playing in the finals would have a good argument. Someone like Brunson, R. Montgomery or Sims would have as legitimate of an argument to be on the National team as someone putting up better numbers on a less successful team. But on the flip side no one is questioning whether Charles belongs and her team was eliminated early, and Sloot if she wasn't Hungarian now would be considered a very strong replacement for a PG spot on the team even though her team landed in the lottery. So saying one player had a better year this year in the W than another isn't a be all end all for this consideration. Basketball is not a cut a dry sport like track and fiend or swimming where the fastest to the finnish line is clearly the best. And to be honest even right now Oct 3rd 2017 I'm not sure I could say that Diggins-Smith, Gray, Sims or Sloot for that matter is definitively a better PG than Bird.

TBH I would like to see some of the younger player start to be incorporated in to the Worlds team in 2018, and I would like to see some new blood on the olympic team. Next summer is still almost a year away and 2020 in way in the future in basketball years for veteran players. I think it is quite possible that injury, or a change of heart about stepping aside very well happen for Bird and some of the other older players by then, so there will still likely be an opportunity for the younger players. Now of course if everyone is healthy, wants to stay and is still producing at a decent level the next few years will be loaded with these arguments. And even if some of the vets do step aside we'll be arguing about who "deserves" to be their replacements. If there is a new PG spot in 2020 does it go to Gray? (My choice at the moment) Diggins-Smith? Does Sims get another chance to prove herself? Does a healthy Jefferson work her way into the picture? Who knows?

she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..

Really? If she's so invincible, then why with Stewart and Loyd and a far far better roster couldn't she lead her team to a better record than the Wings?

Some people let their fandom for Bird overtake all reality and reason.

Have you seen our defense and have you seen our bench How in the hell could Bird fix that? Offensively we were pretty good. I think our FG % was up there with the best teams (if i remember correctly) Maybe Richyyy knows the numbers compared to the rest of the teams.
Bird has never been known for her defense so i dont know how she is the only one responsible for the teams horrible defense.

_________________"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant

she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..

Really? If she's so invincible, then why with Stewart and Loyd and a far far better roster couldn't she lead her team to a better record than the Wings?

Some people let their fandom for Bird overtake all reality and reason.

Have you seen our defense and have you seen our bench How in the hell could Bird fix that? Offensively we were pretty good. I think our FG % was up there with the best teams (if i remember correctly) Maybe Richyyy knows the numbers compared to the rest of the teams.
Bird has never been known for her defense so i dont know how she is the only one responsible for the teams horrible defense.

clearly the players returning who got the gold in 2008, 2012, 2016 have proof on their side, they won the gold, the medal doesn't get any golder. Yes the same exact thing could have happened with other player, but we know for a fact with these player on team USA they achieved the ultimate goal.

Do you consider that dispositive? You could write the identical thing about them in 4, 12, or 24 years from now.

J-Spoon wrote:

The players themselves don't make the decision who is on the team. I agree that it is surprising that vets like Bird, DT, Whalen, Augustus and others want to continue to put in the work to stay on the National Team, but it is just as much their right to wish to continue, as it is the right of new players to want to make the team. It is the coaches and committee who make the final decision so I don't think it is fair to blame the players in question for wanting to continue to persue Their Olympic dream.

There are people here arguing, and more importantly Callan said, that it should be up to these particular players to decide for themselves, that there is a spot for them as long as they ask for it, and that we should all just "trust" them to decide for themselves when enough is enough. Callan made crystal clear that the check you're relying on doesn't exist or at least won't be exerted by the current USAB power structure.

she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..

Really? If she's so invincible, then why with Stewart and Loyd and a far far better roster couldn't she lead her team to a better record than the Wings?

Some people let their fandom for Bird overtake all reality and reason.

Have you seen our defense and have you seen our bench How in the hell could Bird fix that? Offensively we were pretty good. I think our FG % was up there with the best teams (if i remember correctly) Maybe Richyyy knows the numbers compared to the rest of the teams.
Bird has never been known for her defense so i dont know how she is the only one responsible for the teams horrible defense.

You're not seriously arguing that Dallas's roster is stronger or deeper than Seattle's, are you?

Really not sure why there is such fever, oh wait, its based on fan appreciation and preference

Having no dogs in this fight, here's my 2 cents.

Doesn't matter who we think should be on USA, it depends on how USA operates and what they want/like for their team. After all they have been pretty successful. Not saying I agree either but thats what we fans do or not do.

The PG position is very particular by USA standards so far. Bird seems to be the type of PG they want. IE doesn't hunt her own shots, runs and manages the offense, gets everyone involved, total team first player.

Some of the PGs being tossed around, I like on the W level but don't necessarily have those attributes. This could be that they have to hunt their shots etc but the problem arises when they go to USA and possibly still hunt those same shots. You would think and hope that if they really want to make the team they would adjust. And I got this from a dude at Westmont - some of the PGs just don't get that the first option is not their shot.

When you hear comments like that it reminds me that not all players can adjust or are smart enough/want to change enough to fit in with this type of team.

We watch a lot of games and some players who score are not necessarily the smartest tools in the shed, they are gunners. They may make shots that are just bad shots, i.e. early in the shot clock, no rebounders in the paint, no shot clock management, take a shot when a better shot is open. Those players tend to be red flagged for the higher level, they may be top dog on their own team but not who any other top players would want to play with or coaches or mangers would want to deal with.

Doesn't matter who we think should be on USA, it depends on how USA operates and what they want/like for their team.. . . .

The PG position is very particular by USA standards so far. Bird seems to be the type of PG they want.

It's not "their team". This isn't a private business. They don't own it. This isn't the Globetrotters.

This is the United States Olympic Team. USAB is just the organization currently chartered by the USOC to handle basketball. It used to all be run by the AAU. But Congress, by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, chartered the USOC to represent the USA, and empowered the USOC to charter organizations for each sport. And just as the AAU was replaced, these organizations can be replaced.

In other words, it's OUR team, not "their" team. They represent us.

Complaints by others about their practices is why the AAU lost the role.

As for "particular PGs" what you really mean is that in the last eight years Geno wanted particular point guards. Beyond that I challenge you to demonstrate any "particular USA standard" for pg.

she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..

Really? If she's so invincible, then why with Stewart and Loyd and a far far better roster couldn't she lead her team to a better record than the Wings?

Some people let their fandom for Bird overtake all reality and reason.

Have you seen our defense and have you seen our bench How in the hell could Bird fix that? Offensively we were pretty good. I think our FG % was up there with the best teams (if i remember correctly) Maybe Richyyy knows the numbers compared to the rest of the teams.
Bird has never been known for her defense so i dont know how she is the only one responsible for the teams horrible defense.

You're not seriously arguing that Dallas's roster is stronger or deeper than Seattle's, are you?

Storm have more talent in their top 3 players while Dallas has a bench that can outperform some of their starters while the Storm go to shits whenever Bird, Loyd or Stewart go to the bench

_________________"Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant

she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..

Really? If she's so invincible, then why with Stewart and Loyd and a far far better roster couldn't she lead her team to a better record than the Wings?

Some people let their fandom for Bird overtake all reality and reason.

Have you seen our defense and have you seen our bench How in the hell could Bird fix that? Offensively we were pretty good. I think our FG % was up there with the best teams (if i remember correctly) Maybe Richyyy knows the numbers compared to the rest of the teams.
Bird has never been known for her defense so i dont know how she is the only one responsible for the teams horrible defense.

You're not seriously arguing that Dallas's roster is stronger or deeper than Seattle's, are you?

Storm have more talent in their top 3 players while Dallas has a bench that can outperform some of their starters

Huh? Who are these all stars sitting on Dallas's bench?

After the first three, why don't you match up for me the corresponding Wings player you think is better than -

she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..

Really? If she's so invincible, then why with Stewart and Loyd and a far far better roster couldn't she lead her team to a better record than the Wings?

Some people let their fandom for Bird overtake all reality and reason.

Have you seen our defense and have you seen our bench How in the hell could Bird fix that? Offensively we were pretty good. I think our FG % was up there with the best teams (if i remember correctly) Maybe Richyyy knows the numbers compared to the rest of the teams.
Bird has never been known for her defense so i dont know how she is the only one responsible for the teams horrible defense.

You're not seriously arguing that Dallas's roster is stronger or deeper than Seattle's, are you?

Storm have more talent in their top 3 players while Dallas has a bench that can outperform some of their starters

Huh? Who are these all stars sitting on Dallas's bench?

After the first three, why don't you match up for me the corresponding Wings player you think is better than -

she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..

Really? If she's so invincible, then why with Stewart and Loyd and a far far better roster couldn't she lead her team to a better record than the Wings?

Some people let their fandom for Bird overtake all reality and reason.

Have you seen our defense and have you seen our bench How in the hell could Bird fix that? Offensively we were pretty good. I think our FG % was up there with the best teams (if i remember correctly) Maybe Richyyy knows the numbers compared to the rest of the teams.
Bird has never been known for her defense so i dont know how she is the only one responsible for the teams horrible defense.

You're not seriously arguing that Dallas's roster is stronger or deeper than Seattle's, are you?

Storm have more talent in their top 3 players while Dallas has a bench that can outperform some of their starters

Huh? Who are these all stars sitting on Dallas's bench?

After the first three, why don't you match up for me the corresponding Wings player you think is better than -

Doesn't matter who we think should be on USA, it depends on how USA operates and what they want/like for their team.. . . .

The PG position is very particular by USA standards so far. Bird seems to be the type of PG they want.

It's not "their team". This isn't a private business. They don't own it. This isn't the Globetrotters.

This is the United States Olympic Team. USAB is just the organization currently chartered by the USOC to handle basketball. It used to all be run by the AAU. But Congress, by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, chartered the USOC to represent the USA, and empowered the USOC to charter organizations for each sport. And just as the AAU was replaced, these organizations can be replaced.

In other words, it's OUR team, not "their" team. They represent us.

Complaints by others about their practices is why the AAU lost the role.

As for "particular PGs" what you really mean is that in the last eight years Geno wanted particular point guards. Beyond that I challenge you to demonstrate any "particular USA standard" for pg.

USA is the one that is demonstrating what they want with the number of years that not only Bird has been involved but even going back to what Dawn says she had to become. Don't tell me what I really think unless you have suddenly become the Long Island Medium.

Are you picking the team didn't know that, I guess you learn something every day

But either way it doesn't really matter what any of us think or if we have an opinion you would disagree with it

Being busy otherwise I haven't gotten my two cents in yet. Good points all around. My thoughts:

When Callan said the oldies would step aside on their own, I laughed. They can often still play but aren't really the best any more. I can understand wanting to go one more time but...if someone like Catchings who we all hold in high esteem wouldn't step aside when clearly she wasn't the best at her position any more, then I think expecting anyone else to do so is ludicrous.

I agree with Art that it is a great honor to represent the country and that it would be great if more deserving kids got that honor rather than having the oldies just because they are oldies.

I'm kind of back to thinking there should be a limit of two olympics. Then everyone knows they're only going twice so no feelings are hurt by being excluded. And maybe have a lowest age eligible also so we get the players in their prime rather than as bench sitters in their first Olympics (thinking of Stewie here) Use the Worlds as a way to start including younger players. JMO.

Oh and I think maybe Callan's position should also have term limits.

_________________“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou

When Callan said the oldies would step aside on their own, I laughed. They can often still play but aren't really the best any more.

Depends on how you define "best".... athletically or experience-wise seems to be the crux of the argument, especially when talking about the PG position. I'm comfortable with a experienced PG. The thought of Sims being the lead PG terrorizes me.

myrtle wrote:

I can understand wanting to go one more time but...if someone like Catchings who we all hold in high esteem wouldn't step aside when clearly she wasn't the best at her position any more, then I think expecting anyone else to do so is ludicrous.

Catchings was still playing at a relatively high level and then she retired from basketball. I'm not sure she was the best example to use. Cash and AJones seemed to fade away from Team USA even before they retired from the WNBA.
PF is a tougher position to hold onto in Team USA as you get older. It's less about IQ and brains and more about physicality and being a workhorse, more youthful attributes.

myrtle wrote:

I agree with Art that it is a great honor to represent the country and that it would be great if more deserving kids got that honor rather than having the oldies just because they are oldies.

It's only a great honor if you earn it. If a PG is so much better than Bird or Whalen, then show it in camp. Don't expect it to be handed to you. And remember, it's not easy being a floor general to team you're not familiar with with so little practice time together.

myrtle wrote:

I'm kind of back to thinking there should be a limit of two olympics. Then everyone knows they're only going twice so no feelings are hurt by being excluded. And maybe have a lowest age eligible also so we get the players in their prime rather than as bench sitters in their first Olympics

These are all bad un-American ideas. Here we are the country of freedom, and we showcase ourselves by putting in limits that won't be imposed by other countries? Athletes should only be limited by their own abilities.

myrtle wrote:

Oh and I think maybe Callan's position should also have term limits.

She'll know when it's time to step aside.

_________________Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned

clearly the players returning who got the gold in 2008, 2012, 2016 have proof on their side, they won the gold, the medal doesn't get any golder. Yes the same exact thing could have happened with other player, but we know for a fact with these player on team USA they achieved the ultimate goal.

Do you consider that dispositive? You could write the identical thing about them in 4, 12, or 24 years from now.

J-Spoon wrote:

The players themselves don't make the decision who is on the team. I agree that it is surprising that vets like Bird, DT, Whalen, Augustus and others want to continue to put in the work to stay on the National Team, but it is just as much their right to wish to continue, as it is the right of new players to want to make the team. It is the coaches and committee who make the final decision so I don't think it is fair to blame the players in question for wanting to continue to persue Their Olympic dream.

There are people here arguing, and more importantly Callan said, that it should be up to these particular players to decide for themselves, that there is a spot for them as long as they ask for it, and that we should all just "trust" them to decide for themselves when enough is enough. Callan made crystal clear that the check you're relying on doesn't exist or at least won't be exerted by the current USAB power structure.

They have squatter's rights.

If these players are still winning in 24 years in their forties and fifties I think that proves they are the greatest players of all time and would explain why they would never lose their spot.

Even if Callan is saying it is "up to the players" that is still the decision of the committee not the players. And as we saw with Parker last Olympics that is simply an untrue statement on the part of Callan.

But as I said I do think it would be nice at this point to change things up. I assumed it would happen based on vets deciding not to continue with the team so I think if everyone decides to keep going the committee might have to make some tough decisions.

Being busy otherwise I haven't gotten my two cents in yet. Good points all around. My thoughts:

When Callan said the oldies would step aside on their own, I laughed. They can often still play but aren't really the best any more. I can understand wanting to go one more time but...if someone like Catchings who we all hold in high esteem wouldn't step aside when clearly she wasn't the best at her position any more, then I think expecting anyone else to do so is ludicrous.

I agree with Art that it is a great honor to represent the country and that it would be great if more deserving kids got that honor rather than having the oldies just because they are oldies.

I'm kind of back to thinking there should be a limit of two olympics. Then everyone knows they're only going twice so no feelings are hurt by being excluded. And maybe have a lowest age eligible also so we get the players in their prime rather than as bench sitters in their first Olympics (thinking of Stewie here) Use the Worlds as a way to start including younger players. JMO.

It's only a great honor if you earn it. If a PG is so much better than Bird or Whalen, then show it in camp. Don't expect it to be handed to you. And remember, it's not easy being a floor general to team you're not familiar with with so little practice time together.

Callan made clear that's just what they're doing. They're "handing it" to Bird. She's already made it clear it belongs to Bird. Whatever anyone else "shows in camp" is completely irrelevant.

Are you paying no attention at all to how this is being done?

Bird is not the best PG available. She's just the favored member of the clique.

If these players are still winning in 24 years in their forties and fifties I think that proves they are the greatest players of all time and would explain why they would never lose their spot.
.

No it doesn't. It just shows that the US has great depth and that any of 100 players could have won all those years.

All it would prove is that a corrupt system denied the other 88 a chance.

You missed my joke, I was saying I do not think an Olympic team in 24 years with 60 year old PG Bird backed up by 56 year old PG Whalen with 56 year old DT starting at the SG spot backed up by 52 year old Augustus could win the gold medal. And if they could still win Gold at that age yeah they are pretty amazing. (I was just improving the ages no need to correct if I'm off by a year or two.)

Another way of doing 'term limits' in a less specific way would be to make it mandatory to include at least 4, or maybe even 5, first timers each Olympics. And maybe 4 who have only been to one previously. That would leave only 4 spots for the perennials which might make for some interesting cuts.

And yeah, Callan made it sound like no matter how much a younger player outplayed Bird in camp, Bird would still get the nod just because she's been a fixture and wants to do it. (picking on Birdy here but you could insert any other vet who's been to multiple Olys).

_________________“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou

Bird knows there will be no shortcuts to the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020, where she could make history by winning a fifth gold medal.

And part of why she’s still here is knowing her presence alone can help the program, as it did during a recent three-day training camp in Santa Barbara, California.

Quote:

“There are subtleties to being a member of this USA Basketball team,” she said. “A lot of it is doing the little things. I could tell you right now, if you sat down and said, who was the leading scorer in Rio? … Nobody would know. Who was the leading scorer in London or Beijing or Athens? You might guess, but nobody knows for sure."

Quote:

Bird remembered her first Olympics in 2004, when she was Dawn Staley’s understudy. Staley, who won her third gold medal as a player that year, is now the U.S. coach.

“Dawn was always in my ear that year leading up to Athens,” Bird said. “I learned the most just by watching her, the way she carried herself, how she led the team, what it meant to be the point guard of the national team. I’m just trying to pass that torch on the same way Dawn passed it to me. What Dawn did for me, I want to do for every guard out here.”

Quote:

Skylar Diggins-Smith found herself studying Bird at the camp. The former Notre Dame guard came away impressed by the veteran’s “presence, her professionalism, the way she takes over the game, the quarterback-type mentality she has. She’s the best teacher on the floor just by watching her.”

Quote:

Katie Lou Samuelson, a 20-year-old junior at Connecticut — where Bird was a star almost two decades ago — did not see an aging player at the training camp.